To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account or want to create one to read two commentaries for free?
Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Very slim analysis, unworthy of a university professor. I wanted to comment on a few points.
"the near abroad" - Kennedy tried to invade Cuba precisely because the US thinks Cuba is their back yard. Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Haiti were all invaded as parts of this same policy of backyard cleanup. China has its South China Sea islands, Argentina has Falklands. Russia's near abroad is not nearly proportional to its size and involves only the countries that share its borders and that have strong cultural, economic and historical connections with it. Russia has legitimate interest in what happens in it's neighborhood, same as anyone else.
Broken promises - This was more of an emotional than a crucial argument presented by Putin as no agreement was signed (and everybody realizes this). It was meant for domestic use, to show Russians that the West is deceitful. As the Cold war ended and the Warsaw pact disappeared, NATO should have been disbanded or reformed as its only purpose was to counter the USSR. The fact that it was not and even started expanding towards Russia could mean only one thing : NATO wanted to contain/break up the Commonwealth of Independent States and ultimately the Russian Federation itself. Encirclement/containment is real as the US now has bases all over eastern Europe and in Afghanistan with plans to include Georgia and Ukraine. A couple of days ago US army joined a military parade in an Estonian border town, driving armored vehicles only meters away from Russian border. Therefore, Russian fear of NATO (which was founded to fight USSR) is real and understanding, even more so because of the history of foreign armies invading them is long (Mongols in 13th century, Napoleon in 1812, Allies in the 1917-22 revolution and Hitler in 1941).
"Russia in the 1990s evinced little concern..." - It is because Russia was lead by a US friend and ally Boris Yeltsin who invented oligarchs and showed Russians that western democracy is a scam. Putin is not Yeltsin. It is not the same Kremlin.
Yeltsin was an easily manipulated alcoholic and a laughing stock for the world as a stereotypical drunk Russian. Putin tried to change this image by showing his fit body, driving motors/planes/hand gliders and restoring the belief of Russians in the state by bringing down the oligarchs. Yes, he is also the first Russian leader who shows that Russians should look after their endangered animals (tigers, cranes,...) and enjoy nature and sport (Putin has black belt in judo) instead of getting drunk. And that makes him "crazier than Rasputin"? I didn't know Rasputin was crazy.
"Georgia mounted a military response..." - Check your facts. Georgia attacked S. Ossetia thinking Russians would not have time or dare to intervene. The truth is that everything that is happening is a series of reactions by Russia (not just "crazy" Putin) to irresponsible actions of the US. Billions of dollars for regime change (Color revolutions) + unscrupulous US diplomats/lobbyists like Victoria Nuland/Samantha Power + puppets like Saakashvili resulted in a disaster. Putin would not waste 50 billion dollars on Sochi games if he planned to invade Ukraine at the same time. He never said he wished insurgents sent more caskets with dead soldiers back to their American mothers. The US army commander for Europe, general Ben Hodges said exactly that about dead Russian soldiers, hoping their mothers pain would ultimately change Putin's policy. Hoping to scare off Russia with sanctions and deaths? Now that is crazy.

Let us roll back to the regime change that was activated in Maidan last year,with Senator McCain and Baroness Ashton leading the charge, and put ourselves in Putin's shoes when faced with confrontation.The new USA-chosen Ukrainian government banned the Russian language and effectively fired thousands from their public sector jobs as a consequence, whilst affirming they wanted to join NATO. So is Putin now supposed to share Sevastopol with the US fleet, and do nothing to offset this new perceived threat? Regime change in Ukraine has destabilised the country and encouraged extremists as it had in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, Meanwhile 500 CIA operatives appeared in Kiev, to 'advise' the Ukrainian government, and a small regiment of US mercenaries deployed to Ukraine.

Roll on post Crimea to the east of Ukraine wanting independence from Kiev. The response from Kiev was to send in the tanks and start shelling civilians.Imagine if UK sent tanks into Scotland because we wanted independence! So 5000 plus dead, over 1.5 million refugees later, the fragile economy now totally collapsed, organised crime triumphant as oligarchs operate medieval fiefdoms and private armies. Now the US neocons want to sell weapons to the bust Ukrainian government which had been using cluster bombs against civilians, so they could become 'more accurate' as Secretary of State Kerry put it.

Meanwhile US regime change policy has not been abandoned.Last night on the BBC World Service a US neocon indicated they want 'regime change' in Moscow!
He went on about a non-existent threat to the Baltic States[shamefully repeated by Michael Fallon today,then denied by Nick Clegg today] using NATO, and attacking Russia through Ukraine. He noted the Brits would do as told by the USA but Angela Merkel was not compliant-strangely she wants a peaceful Europe, not one riven by new wars.

Economists note the heavy reliance of USA on war profits-from the Second World War USA doubled the size of its economy, whilst it took UK over 50 years to repay the debts to them.Now there is no more Iraq or Afghanistan US arms salesmen are looking to NATO and a new conflict with Russia for new business. We should take a leaf out of the Chinese book, trade with everyone, and keep out of other people's politics. Regime change never pays and can only end in tears and poverty for the innocent.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia encirclement by NATO, period of unipolar hegemony and subsequent retrenchment are not matters of false narratives or misperception, but facts on the ground.

While there may be elements of irrationality in Putin's thinking, as with all people, the former KGB agent has repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a disaster and he looks back romantically at a more powerful past. Without psychologizing, the whole basis of his identity, and by extension his vision of the Russian identity, is based on power and he is opportunistically acting in classic realpolitik terms.

As the U.S. and Europe have been distracted by economic woes, and then Obama retrenched from commitments in the Middle East and more general, Putin has felt confident in asserting himself in various geopolitical conflicts, which have strengthen him at home, while expanding the "near abroad" at the margins.

It will be interesting to see what happens now that the oil-dependent Russian economy starts to collapse with the collapse of oil prices. Will Putin become more conciliatory, attempting to build stronger economic ties with the West, or will he attempt to leverage the "rally around the flag" effect and attempt to blame internal problems on external enemies.

The latter course is where we'll rapidly descend into irrationality and worse. We are moving into a more dangerous period as his domestic legitimacy erodes with the Russian economy and, given that his character was forged standing up to bullies in the Leningrad slums and as a KGB operative, his likely response at home and abroad will take an authoritarian turn and he'll likely continue to test the limits believing that Europe, and particularly the current American President, won't push back. This is ultimately a losing game, but it can go on and gradually escalate at the margins for years. As we learned with the Nazis, economic collapse and aggressive nationalism in a realpolitik world with an retrenching hegemon are a dangerous mix.

I think you glossed over what happened in S. Ossetia and Abkhasia. Just before Georgia attacked the Ossetians the Poles and Czeck Rep. referenda denied the US's entreaties for the installation of radar and offensive misslies in their countries. After Russia repulsed the Georgians and moved into their country the hysteria it created in Poland and Czeck Rep. saw a complete reversal of opinion in those countries in regard to the installation of radar and misslies. It was also disclosed that U.S and Israeli military had been in Georgia training and arming Georgian military. Seems like a classic set-up by the U.S to me.

I would ask Mr James to illustrate us on what is the purpose of NATO's enlargement? Why the US cannot agree on not letting NATO grow more? Does the US gain or lose with NATO's enlargement?
May be if he explains us this issue we will understand Russia and also US activities better. .

Well, I think that this article is very interesting. It has to be considered as the analysis of a historian rather than of a politician. His view is not reactive, as the politicians' view would be, but, in my view, reflective. And this is the reason that many of the comments fail to engage meaningfully.
Anyways, he suggests that world politics turn to a direction of regionalism, so power has to be guaranteed regionally.
It seems that Putin has indeed a political charisma. As for the challenges that lay ahead, I think that Putin's politics shall find the way to bolster his new worldview in a structural way and not as a reaction to the crumbling global partnership.
In any case, thanks for this article.

Quite obviously this commentary is from the USA and supports their aggressive strategy and world view. How many fails do they have in comparison to Russia under Putin. All emotional trash and obfuscation in the great tradition. Try this link - http://stormcloudsgathering.com/rule-from-the-shadows-the-psychology-of-power-part-1

President Eisenhower said that the United States must have a purpose even in fighting the Cold War.
What was the purpose of the West in the eastward expansion or "A Western Strategy for a Declining Russia (Joseph Nye) ? It was not fulfilled if it had been to maintain Ukraine and Crimea as a unified state. It was not achieved if it had been to have a democratic regime in Ukraine, hardly any possibility for this. Was it to send Crimea into Russia? It was a perfect success.

Speaking about the problems of excessive legalsm and moralism in Ameriacn foreign policy, Kennan lamented "a persistent tendency to fashion our policy towards others with a view to feeding a pleasing image of ourselves rather than achieving real, and desperately needed, results in our relations with others (American Diplomacy, expanded edition.)"

While Gerhard Schroeder may have exposed European souls for The Tsar, Edward Snowden May have exposed the American soul. And the inevitable confrontation that is on the cards in the Pacific provided him even more options. The middle east was never far from his trigger happy radar. Jockeying for a financial position leveraging his arsenal was but natural in the roulette that Grandmasters always play for. To expect him to simply stand side by side with the other 19 inside G20 perhaps an error in historical profiling. But then DeGaulle was no different - unless one is in denial. Inside the European Union, the Red Army is impossible. Outside in Union with China, Perestroika is over. And without him, United Nations is history. Londongrad perhaps knows a few lessons for the New DeGaulle. Cameron with Merkel and Putin perhaps the answer to ambush in Europe, that perpetually confronts David versus the Goliaths. Fascinating permutations.

Recall that when Yeltsin tapped a young KGB officer who was stunned and unprepared but had to accept the challenge rather the draft such only come in a lifetime only once; To revive that Old Russia's glory that all his recent predecessors screwed up along the way never mind that most of them drunk themselves to stupor. Many of you bloggers are about right that his quest or the challenge put upon him is impossible in the 21st century. He appears not a realist nor pragmatic. His love for his country has gotten himself like a drunkard lover. And as a blind suitor to a woman at all cost and after he pulled off between her legs, realized he is so broke that all the love is lost and the woman paused. And like many who are pragmatic and thinking of survival, went looking for another Romeo. Simple enough?

Putin is endowed with a quasi-divine mission to give its grandeur back to Russia. He has lost the sense of reality. Just a day ago, he said that the West was actually trying “to contain Russia's growing possibilities”. What dream is that ? Russia has an ageing population of 150 million, a minuscule GDP, and its political system holds only thanks to Putin's exceptional charisma. It cannot expect its place in the 21th century to be anywhere close to the one it had in the 20th. The only things that matter about Russia today are its fossil fuel exports and its willingness to make use of its large army.

Putin, and the Russian that love him, simply cannot recognize that Russia will never be a superpower ever again. They are clinging to delusions and who knows what they will be capable of to maintain them.

The chronology in this article is wrong. It ignores two previous events that played a far more important role in precipitating the shift. These are, in chronological order (I) the west's bombardment of Serbia in 1999 over Kosovo and even more importantly the subsequent secession and recognition of independence of Kosovo by the West, headed by the US- in full contravention of what had been discussed prior to the bombings, and (ii) the 'color' Revolutions of late 2004, the Rose one in Georgia and especially the Orange one in Ukraine. Irrespective of our perceptions in the West, the Orange Revolution was perceived as an anti-Russian act at its core by the Russian government. As for the importance of Kosovo, one only needs look at the statements of Russian officials during and after the Georgian war in 2008, and the degree to which they brought up Kosovo as the equivalent comparison for what took place

The reasoning for this article doesn't track/is unclear. The author rejects Russian fear of NATO expansionism with bald assertions and no facts. Firstly, in offering no evidence that NATO promised not to expand. Secondly, in boldly asserting that Russia couldn't have cared because, it didn't do anything about NATO expansion in the 1990s. Russia did send paratroopers in Kosovo suggesting they did do what they could but more importantly Russia's manifest weakness in the 1990s means it couldn't have done anything even if it wanted to.

Perhaps the 2007 Munich Security Conference should be remembered as the start of a new Cold War, given the tone and content of Putin's strident speech. He accused the US of establishing a "uni-polar" world, overstepping its borders in every way and seeking to impose its will on the world. He said Washington's "very dangerous" approach to global relations was fuelling a nuclear arms race, alluding to Iran's nuclear programme.
Apparently Washington didn't take Putin's criticism to heart and decided to politely brush aside his remarks rather than to escalate tensions with Russia. Robert Gates was at the conference and he poked fun at Putin's career as former KGB spy, saying the Russian president filled him with "nostalgia" for the Cold War. Others dismissed Putin's performance as one of Russia's periodic bouts of letting off steam at its diminished world status.
Gates insisted there was no new Cold War and that the US didn't want one neither, saying it sought Russia's partnership - co-operation in areas such as counter-terrorism and reducing the spread and threat of weapons of mass destruction.
Nevertheless Putin's speech had made an impression and switched the spotlight from Washington to Moscow. In the past it was the much hated Donald Rumsfeld, who dominated the conference. Putin's speech so how marked a chill in relations between Russia and the US.
What is amazing was that Putin warned against the danger of "uncontained hyper use of force in international relations," saying "nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law." Yet he allowed Russia to just do what he had preached by invading Georgia in August 2008 and annexing Crimea in March 2014. While denouncing the US as the "single master" of the world, he is determined to defend what he sees as Russia's legitimate global interests - be they in Syria, or closer to home in Ukraine.
Indeed Putin does the math in reviving his Russian dream. He calculates that his opponents in Europe will not have the stomach for a serious falling over Russian muscle-flexing, due to their reliance on Russian energy supplies and trade. He makes sure that Kiev remains weak, so that it wouldn't be able to join the EU or NATO.

The Western democracies would indeed probably have imploded under the lack of cooperation engendered by the Great Depression had it not been exactly for the galvanizing effect of Hitler and Stalin in triggering fiscal expansion (aka rearmament Keynesian).
Whether the gauntlet thrown down by Putin in the Ukraine is a significant enough threat to overturn austeritiy and deflation remains to be seen: http://silverberg-on-meltdown-economics.blogspot.com/2014/04/happy-days-are-here-again-or-who-says.html

Whatever the reason for President Putin's turn, he seems to have spoken to and acted in accord with the will and aspirations of a great many of the Russian people. I wonder how that feels to the average man on the street?

And whether we in the West approve of his new direction or not, it would be a mistake in my view to ignore Putin's often highly insightful critique of the West of the 21st Century.

Putin has given us in the West a cause for some serious self-examination. It will be tragic if that opportunity is squandered
on the grounds that the man has gone mad or that he has become preoccupied with encirclement. Perhaps he simply saw that the time was right to re-start the conversation about a failing system and offer up some unpleasant Russian alternatives?

In answer to the professor's question, I would be inclined to mark "all of the above."

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Mass protests over racial injustice, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a sharp economic downturn have plunged the United States into its deepest crisis in decades. Will the public embrace radical, systemic reforms, or will the specter of civil disorder provoke a conservative backlash?

For democratic countries like the United States, the COVID-19 crisis has opened up four possible political and socioeconomic trajectories. But only one path forward leads to a destination that most people would want to reach.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.